I'm not all that bright. Could you type what six words you are talking about and we can go from there?

Logged

"When we landed on the moon, that was the point where god should have come up and said 'hello'. Because if you invent some creatures, put them on the blue one and they make it to the grey one, you f**king turn up and say 'well done'."

Once we veer off into invisible qualities clearly seen... well, we are back to the circular illogic of the OP - contemptible or not. Besides, my invisible god has completely different attributes than thanthe god of some fellow in Borneo, a gal in China and my leprechaun. So that cited verse helped me in no way, even though I heard it and quoted it for years as a believer (former, thank Mithra) and never bothered to flesh it out.

smite virginity torn asunder

« Last Edit: July 08, 2013, 07:27:43 PM by neopagan »

Logged

If xian hell really exists, the stench of the burning billions of us should be a constant, putrid reminder to the handful of heavenward xians how loving their god is. - neopagan

"For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse."

So, if I'm following it right, this verse essentially says that the proof of god lies in the fact that the universe exists. By this rationale, wouldn't it be correct to say that rainbows are proof that leprechauns exist?

Logged

Providing rednecks with sunblock since 1996.

I once met a man who claimed to be a genius, then boasted that he was a member of "Mesa".

So, if I'm following it right, this verse essentially says that the proof of god lies in the fact that the universe exists. By this rationale, wouldn't it be correct to say that rainbows are proof that leprechauns exist?

"For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse."

So, if I'm following it right, this verse essentially says that the proof of god lies in the fact that the universe exists. By this rationale, wouldn't it be correct to say that rainbows are proof that leprechauns exist?

Also it is saying that his personality can be seen in his creation.

Logged

Ye are my witnesses, saith Jehovah, and my servant whom I have chosen; that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me.

So, if I'm following it right, this verse essentially says that the proof of god lies in the fact that the universe exists. By this rationale, wouldn't it be correct to say that rainbows are proof that leprechauns exist?

"For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse."

So, if I'm following it right, this verse essentially says that the proof of god lies in the fact that the universe exists. By this rationale, wouldn't it be correct to say that rainbows are proof that leprechauns exist?

If that is in their faith, then that is part of the worldview leprechaunists have. I wouldn't know.

"For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse." http://biblehub.com/romans/1-20.htm

I agree. It's hard to cipher how invisible things can be "clearly seen."So, let's assume, for the sake of understanding, that it means what it says.

So what is "clearly seen":

Infinite complexity-The closer you look, the more there is to see.Big - like no-end-in-sight big.Delicate - every big thing we see is made of millions of small parts.Reliable - not much changes at all.

So that passage is making clear that what God has created is not God.But it reflects his divine nature. So our reality is proof enough of God.Those who don't have a Bible are not off the playing field. Becauseof Creation, there is no excuse for not knowing God.

So, if I'm following it right, this verse essentially says that the proof of god lies in the fact that the universe exists. By this rationale, wouldn't it be correct to say that rainbows are proof that leprechauns exist?

We know how rainbows are formed, but we only have theories about the universe how it came into existence.

So which is more rational and honest conclusion?

a) I don't know if there is a creator of the universe because we don't have evidence on how the universe was formed or came into existence.

b) I don't know how universe was formed or created but I know there is no creator god.

Are you still teaching your kids theories as if they were facts?Don't you think it is another way of indoctrination?

a) I don't know if there is a creator of the universe because we don't have evidence on how the universe was formed or came into existence.

b) I don't know how universe was formed or created but I know there is no creator god.

Are you still teaching your kids theories as if they were facts?Don't you think it is another way of indoctrination?

Why assume a single creator if you're going to play that card? Additionally, what's with the assumption that the universe was created? That's akin to assuming that everything that is had to be created and if you go down that slippery slope then the question of what created the universe's creator needs to be addressed followed by what created that creator, and so on and so forth.

"For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse." http://biblehub.com/romans/1-20.htm

I agree. It's hard to cipher how invisible things can be "clearly seen."So, let's assume, for the sake of understanding, that it means what it says.

So what is "clearly seen":

Infinite complexity-The closer you look, the more there is to see.Big - like no-end-in-sight big.Delicate - every big thing we see is made of millions of small parts.Reliable - not much changes at all.

So that passage is making clear that what God has created is not God.But it reflects his divine nature. So our reality is proof enough of God.Those who don't have a Bible are not off the playing field. Becauseof Creation, there is no excuse for not knowing God.

all it makes clear to me is some ancient folks claimed god is there an did what they attribute to him/them.what makes any of it divine? some kid was run over here the other day at a 4th of july parade by his dad - drive of the float. we who saw that witnessed nothing divine or nothing of his divine nature. bu let me guess, thats sin right? not part of his creation?

Logged

If xian hell really exists, the stench of the burning billions of us should be a constant, putrid reminder to the handful of heavenward xians how loving their god is. - neopagan

My point is "No one knows or has evidence on either case" then why settle your conclusion as "there is no god?" instead of "I don't know

It doesn't matter if the universe was created or not, really?

As far as evidence and what it supports, we disagree mainly because of the definition(s) that surround the term "God". Based on reality and comparing reality with the prevailing religious definitions of God it is pretty safe to say that such a being is beyond highly unlikely.

Logic is only as valid as its premise. There's a difference - a big, big difference - between stating that a square can not be a circle because of their geometric properties, and saying that a creator cannot itself be created. We can specifically determine the properties of a circle and a square and show that those properties are mutually exclusive; we cannot determine the properties of this Creator of yours in order to show that they are mutually exclusive with the properties of having been created by something else.

Logged

Nullus In Verba, aka "Take nobody's word for it!" If you can't show it, then you don't know it.

My point is "No one knows or has evidence on either case" then why settle your conclusion as "there is no god" instead of "I don't know"?

I don't assert definitively "There is no god."

I do, however, know enough about biology, chemistry and physics to believe that a naturalistic explanation is somewhat more plausible than a creator god. An entity of immense power that tinkers with minutiae such as the subatomic particles of the Standard Model? That's akin to attempting to paint the Mona Lisa on a grain of sand while wearing boxing gloves. (Doesn't help that said being, for all its purported power, doesn't leave any energy traces on the universe either.)

Lets just isolate part of the verse to try and make nonsense of it, shall we? What does the rest of the verse say?

This is contemptible, Neo Pagan.

Paul was weird. He had one foot in a sort of innocent reality and the other in a land of invisible beings who did mysterious things:

Ro:1:14: I am debtor both to the Greeks, and to the Barbarians; both to the wise, and to the unwise.Ro:1:15: So, as much as in me is, I am ready to preach the gospel to you that are at Rome also.Ro:1:16: For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.Ro:1:17: For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith.Ro:1:18: For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;Ro:1:19: Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.Ro:1:20: For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:Ro:1:21: Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.Ro:1:22: Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,

There follows a list of people who God hates and then:

Ro:1:28: And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;

i.e. gays, murderers, all the usual suspects, etc. Note "In which God has condemned them to having a reprobate mind" and thus, beyond their own control, be eternally damned.

Note that... God could have shown then the error of their ways instead of leaving itinerant preachers to do this, but no, he saw they were arseholes and gave them a "reprobate mind" very helpful...

And the chapter ends on the cheering note:

Ro:1:32: Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.

One thing that Paul (or whoever wrote this) fails to address is theodicity: why bad things happen to good people and why bad people have a good life.

Ro:1:18: For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;

You see, it is not revealed at all!

Paul, of course, thought that with the death of Jesus came the End of Times and that Armageddon would be in his lifetime[1] . (I wonder what he is thinking now?)

Not sure if this has been brought up here, but what does anyone make of these 2 Bible verses?

As stated in Psalms 14:1, all Atheist are fools:"The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good."

Matthew 5:22 states:"But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire."

So one verse says that Atheist are fools and another verse says that if a someone calls another person a fool, they are in danger of going to hell.

I pointed this out to a Christian who was referring to Atheist as fools in a debate and his response after seeing what Jesus supposedly said in Matthew 5:22 was like, "...and? So what!"

When I used to consider myself to be a Christian, I wonder if I would have put the blinders on just as the guy previously mentioned did, or would I have seen the contradiction right away.

I'm puzzled as to how I could have ever believed any of this stuff!

Lets try a more accurate translation with study references: "However, I say to you that everyone who continues wrathful with his brother will be accountable to the court of justice; but whoever addresses his brother with an unspeakable word of contempt ["An unspeakable word of contempt." Greek Rhaka] will be accountable to the Supreme Court; whereas whoever says, 'You despicable fool!' will be liable to the fiery Gehenna. (Matthew 5:22 NWT)

Since in the time of earlier translations the meaning of the Greek word Raca wasn't known translators simply transliterated the word. Now the meaning of the word is known, as given above.

Gehenna is often mistranslated as hell. It is actually a literal place S and SW of ancient Jerusalem. It was, in Jesus' time, a symbol of spiritual everlasting destruction, in other words, representative of there being no hope for resurrection for the criminals whose dead bodies were deposited there.

The text at Matthew 5:22 doesn't simply say calling someone a fool leads to spiritual destruction, it is about wrongly accusing ones brother of being morally bankrupt. It's talking about putting oneself in a position of judgment and wrongly condemning a spiritual brother to the spiritual destruction the accuser himself could receive. It is, in effect, blasphemy. Jesus and God and the other righteous prophets under inspiration, operating under the holy spirit, were not wrong in calling unbelievers fools, nor was Jesus contradicting himself or being hypocritical.

Well I think paul is thinking nothing since he is dead. Many of His atoms have likely been reclaimed by other life forms and returned to the soil several times since then.

Has anyone attempted to explain the whole ~"these things will come to pass in your lifetime"?

If you accept the concepts of heaven and hell, then it is easypeasy to explain. In this context, lifetime is the entire lifetime of your spirit. Also known as forever. Therefore god's got infinity time to fulfill that.

Logged

"When we landed on the moon, that was the point where god should have come up and said 'hello'. Because if you invent some creatures, put them on the blue one and they make it to the grey one, you f**king turn up and say 'well done'."

So, if I'm following it right, this verse essentially says that the proof of god lies in the fact that the universe exists. By this rationale, wouldn't it be correct to say that rainbows are proof that leprechauns exist?

We know how rainbows are formed, but we only have theories about the universe how it came into existence.

So which is more rational and honest conclusion?

a) I don't know if there is a creator of the universe because we don't have evidence on how the universe was formed or came into existence.

b) I don't know how universe was formed or created but I know there is no creator god.

Are you still teaching your kids theories as if they were facts?Don't you think it is another way of indoctrination?

You left out a third option. Which can't be shortened to one sentence.

c )We don't know exactly how the universe formed, though we have some pretty interesting and plausible ideas based on our current knowledge of physics and other sciences. They could be wrong too, but they are based on our current understanding, which we realize will change as we research and discover those bits of reality that we can study, observe and use. We don't know if there is a creator, but so far we can't find any evidence for one nor or a need for one. And the only stories that say there is a creator are several millennia old, and based on often ridiculous tales about gardens and floods and such, and hence there is no reason, nor even any method, of taking them into consideration without doing the faith thing. And faith has a consistent policy of distorting the reality of most anyone dependent upon it. Hence adding it to science is even harder. And faith that that makes claims that are consistently outside of scientific knowledge is impossible to use as a reality check because said claims don't fit with anything except the claims that the faith is making.

Note: If you read the posts of the various atheists on this forum, you will note a noticeable consistency in our overall view of the universe, even though we sometimes quibble of little things. We atheists have come from a variety of backgrounds, and have reached our conclusion about the lack of a god or gods in various ways, but we arrived at about the same place anyway. If you read the posts of the various believers that post on this forum, you will notice absolutely no consistency in anything other than their belief in a god. That is, each person of faith that comes here as customized the concept so completely that they often post conflicting religious opinions on a variety of topics. From the literalness of the creation story to the importance of Paul or the meaning of the words of Jesus. That inconsistency is completely consistent with falsehoods perpetrated upon millions by previous millions who were duped by the millions before that. And while I have no reason to doubt the sincerity of any given believer of any faith, I also have no reason to take the time to choose which version of which religion I should swallow hook, line and sinker.

Well I think paul is thinking nothing since he is dead. Many of His atoms have likely been reclaimed by other life forms and returned to the soil several times since then.

Has anyone attempted to explain the whole ~"these things will come to pass in your lifetime"?

If you accept the concepts of heaven and hell, then it is easypeasy to explain. In this context, lifetime is the entire lifetime of your spirit. Also known as forever. Therefore god's got infinity time to fulfill that.

Life "time", it was called. Infinite beings don't need to take that into consideration, or even name the concept. Time is irrelevant to those who will be around forever. None of the words in their language would reflect any concept of time. And when addressing folks for whom that lack of time is an unknown, such as the aforementioned crowd, if JC was really saying he would be back at some point in infinity, he should have said so, rather than confusing the locals and creating generation after generation of followers who are absolutely convinced that he will show up any day now.

If there is a heaven, I wonder how messed up things are up there, given that things are messed up here rather horribly by all the misunderstandings the biblical god and his kid caused. If the dude is real, he can't omnipotent his way out of a wet paper bag. I wouldn't get your hopes up on the "living forever with god thing" if I were you. You might have to sweep floors or clean toilets for all of infinity, because of oversights in his planning of heaven.

a) I don't know if there is a creator of the universe because we don't have evidence on how the universe was formed or came into existence.

b) I don't know how universe was formed or created but I know there is no creator god.

Are you still teaching your kids theories as if they were facts?Don't you think it is another way of indoctrination?

This is essentially a false dichotomy. You are presenting only two of the possible conclusions and leaving out the others. Furthermore, both of these conclusions are a lot more honest than believing in a religious creation story and a definite creator based on the religion's creation story.

While it's true that one can't rule out possibilities without evidence, the fact of the matter is that one shouldn't put any credence in a possibility for which no reliable evidence exists.

Logged

Nullus In Verba, aka "Take nobody's word for it!" If you can't show it, then you don't know it.